Optimum capacity of shared accommodation: yield management analysis

Abstract

Purpose -Low utilisation is observed in many buildings and space-sharing is often identified as a facilities management response, but uncertainty about demand makes it difficult to decide how much shared accommodation to provide. The purpose of this paper is to analyse similar problems in the discipline of yield management, a branch of operations research. Design/methodology/approach -The "newsvendor problem" in yield management is adapted and applied the to the space-sharing problem. The mathematical model identifies the optimum capacity for specified values of input variables. The model is illustrated with worked examples for systematic variation in three factors: the average demand (three values), the penalty cost ratio (six values), and demand uncertainty (three values). Findings -The optimum capacity for shared accommodation can be mathematically determined. It varies considerably with the case-specific values given to input variables. Three "principles of optimality" are defined that apply to optimum capacity for a given demand, or alternatively to optimal loading for a given capacity.Research limitations/implications -The variation between different cases shows that optimal capacity must be assessed for specific contexts. The mathematical model makes simplifying assumptions that have not yet been tested in real-world situations. A comparison between optimal and actual performance would reveal whether there are opportunities for significant enhancement in facilities management performance. Originality/value -Applications of yield management ideas to the space sharing problem have not been found in the literature.

Access over ownership – a typology of shared space

“…The searches themselves have been completed using predetermined keywords to secure a consistent and well-defined approach for identifying and collecting articles, and the focus of the review has been to identify the existing theoretical knowledge within the subject. All in all 64 scientific journals was systematically searched, resulting in a total of 78 relevant articles from which 12 main articles within the subject were chosen based on relevance to the study as judged by the author (Fawcett 2009b;Rafferty 2012;Moss et al 2009;Roberts 2004;Uzairiah et al 2013;Larsen et al 2011;Wood 2006;Hoffmann et al 2012;Komarova 2008;Dempsey 1999;Andersen 1985;Michelini & Fiorentino 2012). The information gathered from the review was used to form the theoretical offset and framework for the development of the typology, as well as to form a first very rough draft for a typology to be used as the theoretical base to guide the collection of examples for the inventory described in the following.…”

The characteristics to consider in municipal shared spaces

“…Moving outside the office, studies on how flexible interior and a focus on adaptable buildings can help increase the possible users over time (Barbosa, Araújo, Mateus, & Bragança, 2016) are also emerging, as are some of the fist evaluations of shared space. This literature not only illustrates the potential benefits of shared space but also reveals some of the difficulties connected with the concept (Fawcett, 2009;Khajehzadeh & Vale, 2016;Moss, Ruzinskaite, & Alexander, 2009;Pitt & Bennet, 2008;Rafferty, 2012;Uzairiah, Tobi, Amaratunga, & Noor, 2013).…”

Routines, Rigidity and Real Estate: Organisational Innovations in the Workplace

“…The literature has warned that increased remote working can negatively impact communication between colleagues and that the best place to bring people together and to communicate is at the workplace [21]. The importance of a well-designed space reservation system for activity-based offices was also stressed [33]. All in all, the feedback has been positive but when improvements have been suggested they have been related to the lack of privacy, inadequate spaces to support work that requires concentration, insufficient storage space, difficulties in locating colleagues, wasting employee time through the repeated process of setting up and shutting down a workstation, and the limited ability of personalising a workstation [30,31].…”

“…It is an example of organisational processes being renewed and thus routine rigidity being overcome. It is remarkable that such a strong routine could be overcome when the most commonly discussed driver of this change is the cost savings from reducing the amount of unused space [21,22,[30][31][32][33][34]. However, the change has not just been driven by optimising space and there are many reasons for the move to activity-based working.…”